RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

I think that a discussion on "possible" layering would be more than welcome.
It will be greatly useful in order to understand which part of the specs do
what in a real runtime scenario!

However, about your (Bob) view on the layering
	>
	> My own view is that there will be different protocol layers for
	> (at least):
	> Message Service
	> Business Service Interface
	> Business Transaction
	> Business Collaboration
	> EAI
	> "Internal" business app.
	>

I would consider that the Business Service Interface would include the
"Business Transaction" and "Business Collaboration", i.e. these two would be
an integral part of the BSI.
	Of course, here by BSI I mean the middleware responsible for
	bridging between the MSH and ANY existing legacy application
	and responsible of the execution of the choreography (at least !)

	>
	> I include the last two not because they are parts of ebXML
	> (although I think hooks would be useful, as in Stefano's
	> BSI proposal), but because lots of people within ebXML
	> seem to think that internal business apps will handle
	> everything beyond the transport layer (which they almost
	> certainly won't, unless they were designed with ebXML
	> in mind).

I think that this makes a lot of sense ! I do not think that Legacy
applications (the ones that actually do the business work!) would be built
explicitely for ebXML, unless until ebXML would not be the one and only-one
B2B standard in the world. At least, all the current legacies would need
to be re-used in an ebXML context.

My idea is that customers would need to adapt their existing legacies
to the ebXML infrastructure and NOT to replace their internal processes
in order to accomodate ebXML functionalities

/Stefano